B. Chandra Kumar, J.

This revision arises out of the order passed in I.A. No.842 of 2008 in O.S. No. 149 of 2002, dated 16.09.2008, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, Chittoor District.

2. The petitioner herein is the petitioner in I.A. No. 842 of 2008 and the plaintiff in the main suit. The respondent herein is the respondent in I.A. No. 842 of 2008 and the defendant in the main suit. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the lower Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are as follows. The petitioner had filed the suit in O.S. No. 149 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle (hereinafter referred to as 'lower Court'), against the respondent for recovery of Rs.1,63,400/- basing on a pronote, said to have been executed by the respondent on 31.12.1999. The petitioner's case is that the respondent borrowed Rs.95,000/- from him and executed a pronote on 31.12.1999, marked as Ex.A1, in the presence of attestors, namely Jagadishwar and Rajendra Prasad and subsequently failed to pay the amount. The main contention of the respondent is that he had not borrowed the amount from the petitioner and that the said promissory note is a rank forgery.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself had been examined as PW.1 and one of the attestors of Ex.A1 had been examined as PW.2. At the instance of the respondent, Ex.A1 pronote was sent to Pt. Ashok Kashyap, the handwriting expert, who in his report Ex.C5 opined that the disputed signature marked in Ex.A1 is a forged one. Then the respondent had been examined as DW.1 and the handwriting expert Pt. Ashok Kashyap had been examined as DW.2 and certain documents had been marked.

5. Then the petitioner filed I.A. No.842 of 2008, under Order XXVI Rule 10-A CPC, seeking a direction to send the suit promissory note Ex.A1 to any Government handwriting expert for comparison of the disputed signatures in Ex.A1 with that of the admitted signatures of the respondent available in the documents marked as Exs.C1 to C4 and Exs.X1 to X4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is in the habit of signing in different styles in each document with different spelling and the same had been admitted by the handwriting expert and that certain documents containing the signatures of the respondent had been marked on behalf of the petitioner as Exs.C1 to C4 and Ex.X1 to X4 which are available in the Court file, and that the specimen signatures S-1 to S-9 are not similar and that DW.2, the handwriting expert, had not properly compared the disputed signatures with that of the admitted signatures of the respondent. The main contention of the respondent is that Ex.A1 was already sent to the handwriting expert, who had given his opinion and that merely because the opinion of the handwriting expert is against to the wish of the petitioner, the opinion of the second expert cannot be taken, more over when the petitioner had been given an opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting expert at length and nothing had been elicited from his evidence. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner cannot seek the opinion of the second expert and such a course is not permissible in law.

6. The learned Senior Civil Judge observed that the pronote Ex.A1 had been already sent to the handwriting expert, who is a popular and renowned handwriting expert and that the said expert had given sound reasoning for the conclusions arrived at by him and that the said report is not set aside by the Court. The learned Judge also further observed that the settled legal position is that the opinion of the second expert can be sought for only when there are grave irregularities in the opinion of the first expert or when the Court comes to a conclusion that the opinion of the expert is biased and that in the absence of any such allegations, the opinion of the second expert cannot be sought for. It was als